I do agree with Russell when he talks about using logic to refer to non-existent objects. He uses unicorns as an example, and since these objects are not real, they do not exist, and we cannot efficiently or accurately use logic to talk about them, as it will only detract from the argument being made. Attempting to use logic to talk about non-existent objects may only allow contradictions to rise, and Russell's point here strengthens the idea that bringing unreal things into an argument will not be seen as intelligent because logic cannot support it.
An issue with Russell's point of view, however, is the concept and power of the human mind and how objects that are inexistent to the real, physical world could very well exist in the our minds. Things such as unicorns, that do not exist, are so well known even without the trait of existence, and I think there is something to be said about that. This concept of knowing and being able to refer to inexistent things such as unicorns can be thought of as a different realm than how we talk about things that do concretely exist, separated by logistical evidence, but I do believe that the aspect of the human mind should be brought up in this argument, as well as how it could be perceived as part of this discussion.
A question that arose to me while reading Russell's work is at the end of the "Descriptions" piece, he talks about primary and secondary occurrences. Is this referring to partial or complete descriptions for the propositions? I think I missed a connection here.
Perhaps he meant that when we talk about these objects such as "I meant a unicorn" we do not say really anything of context compared to when we say something such as "I met a man". Because the first is impossible, therefore means nothing, whereas the latter is perfectly logical to assume correct, even if the person saying it is in fact lying. He does not deny the existence of the concept of a unicorn, just the validity in language of the use of the word unicorn. He also gets a little sassy by saying the use of the word "unicorn" is "...is a most pitiful and paltry evasion", but he does not deny that the word/concept can be used!
ReplyDelete